Self-Management and Chickenpox – Folha de S. Paulo, January 30, 1982
by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
More than one objector has asked me what exactly the scope of self-management is for the future of nations in the Americas, whether in the South, Center, or North. At the core of the question, I see a hint of the old optimism that spans the entire continent (with the possible exception of Mexico, whose historical path sometimes appears bloody and sometimes heroically dramatic). While North Americans differ from the vast majority of South Americans in nearly everything—languages, races, religions, history, economic circumstances, and the psychology of everyday people—they share this underlying optimism from the frozen reaches of Canada to those of Patagonia.
This continental optimism can be summarized as follows: apocalyptic wars, catastrophic revolutions, intense ideological crises, dazzling and even radiant glories, which turn entire peoples into mortal enemies. All of this adds color and movement, making the peoples of Europe even more prominent and fascinating. In the three Americas, we have certainly also faced wars, revolutions, and divisions, but they are like chickenpox compared to smallpox, or drizzle compared to a storm. Here, we will always have peace—peace and even more peace…
The logical consequence of this optimistic assumption—which, incidentally, is completely questionable from a historical perspective—is that even if a tragedy occurred and a communist regime was imposed, it would never take hold in the Americas.
* * *
In my view, this optimism is one of the main reasons why many South American countries are slow to respond to others facing communist, media-driven, political, or even violent upheavals. They see these as nothing more than chickenpox in neighboring houses. When a country feels threatened, it takes care of itself, not because it believes that the severity of smallpox is comparable to its “chickenpox,” but simply because every country handles chickenpox when it affects its own territory.
This is how Spanish-American countries viewed the somewhat communist regimes that were (mostly briefly) established in many of them. And that is why some South American politicians see a possible rapprochement with Cuba. In their shortsightedness, they believe that communism in Cuba will eventually disappear. Why? Simply because Cuba is part of the Americas, and therefore the severe smallpox that has alarmingly “taken hold” in Cuba will inevitably turn into “chickenpox” over time.
As far as I can tell, this is the same mindset that left-wing, center-left, and centrist politicians in the United States and Canada use to view the communist threat in Cuba, Nicaragua, and El Salvador, just as they recently saw guerrilla warfare and terrorism in Latin America. That is, chickenpox in the neighbor’s house.
* * *
People with this old, optimistic mindset were understandably shocked by the two strong assertions recently presented: 1) self-management is merely a step toward communism; 2) it also threatens the Americas, especially South America and Brazil.
How so? While self-management is essentially and seriously communist, it resembles the “smallpox” type. How then can it succeed in countries where only “chickenpox” exists? Through what unexpected and even unrecognized channels?
Asking this question overlooks the forces driving many, if not most, of the movements that have shaped South America. Let me demonstrate with Brazil.
Politicians of relevant culture have appeared throughout our history. However, in most cases, they are practical individuals mainly focused on uniting the electorate, winning elections, and promoting themselves within their own state or country. Because of this, they don’t have much time for deeper studies. In electoral pursuits, a politician’s psychological insight, ability to communicate, willingness to participate, and willingness to help matter much more than the number of books he has actually read.
Furthermore, Brazilians tend to be peaceful and avoid conflicts, even ideological ones. As a result, they resist any reformist efforts with strong inertia. This reflects a generally conservative attitude.
How, then, was it possible to guide the country through the successive reforms it has undergone? Disliking internal conflicts among us, we Brazilians also do not favor conflicts with other nations. The days of the Paraguayan War are long gone.
Therefore, we tend to avoid anything that sets us apart from other nations to the point of conflict. We aim to gradually align with global standards.
* * *
This is clearly just one of the factors that contribute to national peace. However, be careful not to underestimate this peaceful attitude.
I believe, for example, that the monarchy would have lasted longer in Brazil if it had not been portrayed as outdated as early as 1889 by “progressive” writers and journalists. In fact, in just over twenty-five years, the main thrones of continental Europe fell one by one. Nor would the collapse of the rural aristocracy have been so quick or easy in 1930 if it had not been for the fact that the aristocracy was disappearing across the West, as the rising capitalist bourgeoisie saw it as an outdated human standard, lifestyle, and relationship model. And so I could continue adding more examples.
Brazilians prefer not to adopt forms and styles that are different from those of other peoples, especially if it causes moral tension with them.
Now, what means did the population have – and still has – to test the relevance or anachronism of its standards? It mainly focused on two factors: French thought and American success.
The Republic was positioned at the forefront of modernity mainly because of the widespread “highly French” prestige of its thought leaders. However, it was the truly impressive economic success of the United States, along with French influence, that helped guide us toward the Republic. A similar pattern could be observed with the “de-aristocratizing” wave of 1930.
Clearly, I do not mean to suggest that the causes of the events in 1889 and 1930 can be reduced to this. I am simply pointing out that this factor did play a role in the psycho-ideological realm, which is one of the key areas of activity for major revolutionary movements.
